Royal Baby Circumcision? We’re Just Better Off Not Knowing Some Things

The Royal Baby’s circumcision is a hot topic of debate online right now. While not as popular as baby name speculation, circumcision is a close and uncomfortable second and strangely, there’s actually a lot of history to it.

The debate was raised by Jennifer Lipman, a comment editor of London’s Jewish Chronicle before the baby was even born (and revealed to be a boy). You see, Queen Victoria actually believed herself to be a descendant of the Biblical King David, and therefore sanctioned circumcision.

Therefore, all male royalty were “cut,” starting with King Edward VII. Prince Charles was even circumcised by a mohel (a rabbi who specializes in the practice) instead of the royal physician.

Though Lipman called it a “royal tradition,” there has been some controversy over Royal Baby circumcision over the past couple decades. Even though it has been a royal practice since the 1840s, Diana apparently didn’t care for it much.

When Prince William and Prince Harry were born, they were left uncircumcised on Diana’s command. There have been rumors that the two finally got cut after their mother’s death, but first of all bleaugh, and second of all, there’s no proof to the claim.

In any case, it has become something of a minor obsession since the announcement of the new prince’s birth, and MSN is even keeping an eye out for trending hashtags like #RoyalMohel and #RoyalBris.

Our take? Let’s get a name before we start talking genital mutilation. Priorities, people. Also, I really don’t want to know anything more about the Royal Baby circumcision. So there’s that.